COLUMN: The Politics of Dopes
Barack Obama, Empty Suit
Barack Obama’s supporters compare him to John Kennedy, another great orator whose youth and short political resume opened him to complaints that he didn’t have enough experience to be president. But there’s no comparison. JFK served two terms in the House and won two terms in the Senate before asking us not to ask what he could do for us. If Obama wins, he will only have had four years in Congress, next to Kennedy’s fourteen. (Hillary Clinton, running as a grizzled veteran, would have eight.)
Ted Kennedy is a better analogy. At the start of his 1980 Democratic primary challenge to incumbent President Jimmy Carter, Kennedy was riding high in the polls. But when Roger Mudd of CBS News asked him why he wanted to be president, he fumbled. “Kennedy’s problem,” Paul Waldman wrote in The American Prospect in July 2007, “was not that he didn’t have a good reason to run–he had plenty of them.” His problem was the way he thought about that run. He thought about issues, he thought about the weaknesses of the president he was trying to supplant, he thought about the programs he wanted to institute. What he didn’t construct was a story that explained his candidacy to voters and offered a narrative structure for journalists to use when reporting on him.”
Successful presidential contenders, Waldman argues persuasively, answer Mudd’s classic question with a three-part story. First, the candidate “describes the state of the country and its government, clearly defining what is wrong.” Next comes “the place the candidate wants to take us, the better day being promised.” Then he tells us why he’s the person who can get us there.
Waldman is having a good week. Barack Obama, he predicted a full six months ago, had the best three-part campaign narrative of the major contenders. America’s biggest problem, Obama says, is “partisan bickering,” which he traces to the lingering ideological rifts of the 1960s protest era. His biracial heritage gives white voters a chance to prove they’re not racist. As a Gen Xer, he says he’s the guy to move us past the Boomers’ battles.
Of course, Obama’s three-part story ignores important issues that affect real people–jobs, college tuition costs, taxes, healthcare, Iraq. I’m 44, and I’ve never met anyone who thinks there’s “partisanship in Washington.” (Most voters complain that their party isn’t forceful enough.) It’s a lame sales pitch, though it may work.
What Obama has not done is answer the question: Why does he want to be president? The answer–that it would be a cool addition to his resume–is too unappealing to say out loud.
The night of the New Hampshire primary Obama declared (four times!): “There is something happening in America!” What’s happening? “Change,” he said, “is what’s happening in America.” Change to what? Obama didn’t say.
“Yes, we can,” Obama said (11 times). “Yes, we can, to justice and equality. Yes, we can, to opportunity and prosperity. Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can repair this world. Yes, we can.” Great. How?
He cannot say.
All the candidates, except for John Edwards, want to be president because they want to be president. Winning the presidency is their goal. Like Robert Redford at the end of “The Candidate,” they have no idea what they’ll do if they get the gig.
In his memoirs Nixon chief of staff H.R. Haldeman described moving into the White House after the grueling 1968 campaign. Nearly a year passed, grinding thousands of Americans and Vietnamese to death and dismemberment, as the incoming administration learned to use the phones and master the inner workings of the federal bureaucracy. Defeating Hubert Humphrey hadn’t left enough time to develop a coherent domestic or foreign policy. Setting an agenda was done on the fly, as Nixon’s officials responded to events.
Among presidents in the modern political era, only FDR and LBJ entered the Oval Office knowing what they wanted to do. (George W. Bush–or rather Dick Cheney–knew what he/they wanted to do but didn’t deign to tell us.) It’s no accident that they were two of the most effective leaders of the 20th century, or that their legislative agendas remain cherished legacies of American progress.
If I received a call tonight informing me that I needed to come to Washington because I had somehow been selected president, I would be ready to work tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock. I already know who I’d choose as my secretaries of state, defense and other cabinet appointees. Guantánamo would be shut down. The Department of Homeland Security would be abolished. We’d pull out of NAFTA and the WTO. Torture would be banned; habeas corpus restored. I have tax reform ready to go (soak corporations and the rich, companies that outsource U.S. jobs and use offshore tax shelters would be barred from selling goods to U.S. consumers), a detailed education policy (federal control would replace local control and funding of public schools, colleges and universities would be nationalized and made free) and a plan for healthcare (fully socialized). My foreign policy would go into effect at once: immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, an address to the United Nations apologizing for the wars and the torture and offering reparations, normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran, North Korea and Cuba, and cutting off aid to oppressive dictatorships.
I’m just a writer and cartoonist, but I know exactly what I’d do if I became president. Why doesn’t Barack Obama?
We ought to expect nothing less from the men and women–all professional politicians–who seek the most important office in the country, and on earth.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
30 Comments.
TED! TED! TED! TED! TED! TED!
You have my vote! Where do I send the campaign contribution?
We need the anti-Bush, and Obama is not it. Here's the thing though, Ted. Anyone who did all of the things that need to be done would also have to also restrict the media, or they would be out on their ass in four years or less. The corporate propaganda machine would kick into high gear unless you went Chavez on it. That is how bad things have gotten.
I agree. This is the problem with anyone who advocates change….they get roasted and painted so poorly that people turn against them.
Chavez is an excellent example. Simply put, evil is well financed. I understand the desire for uncompromising sweeps, but the reality is we have to pick what's available at the time, and make the best choices we can right now in a pragmatic way.
This isn't about sewing the arm back on, it's about trying to slow the bleeding. I don't think it's hypocritical to stand for a strong position but be willing to accept incremental change. Whatever happens next November, Bush will not be in power in a year. That's progress. Is it utopia? no, but right now the people who are suffering the consequences of Bushism just want any step they can take.
I just think it's worth considering.
That's a great program you have there Ted, I mean the part about soaking the corporations, banning outsourcing and pulling out of the WTO (the other stuff is nice too, but is basically window dressing compared to this, which really gets at the root of the matter). Problem is it's already totally IMPOSSIBLE to actually carry out. Read John Gray's book on global capitalism, _False Dawn_ to find out why. Basically the global capitalist class has already effectively detached itself from its original post-WWII base in the US. If the US government did any or all of these things, that class, in the person of the corporations, would just quarantine the patient and let the fever pass–i.e. punitively pull out its interests and let the US economy collapse until the "socialists" were overthrown. Then they would come back and use the US as an English-speaking Latin American country. Of course, it would never get to that, just the credible threats of doing so, combined with full-bore media manipulation would prevent you from ever coming within a 1000 miles of the presidency. Just ask multi-term Congressman Kucinich, two-term Senator Gravel (or even Edwards, the highly watered down version of those two).
Now I'm considering you as a write-in candidate. Too bad such a thing is a vote wasted in our current system of a simple majority coupled with the electoral college disconnect from actual votes and, of course, meddling by the Supreme Court.
Add this to your list of things to do as president: a full overhaul of the United States election system. Primaries (if even necessary) should all be held on the same day. The simple majority would be abolished in favour of instant runoff voting. The electoral college would be abolished. Finally, every citizen who votes across the nation does so in the same way; if electronic voting is used, a slip of paper is printed out so that the voter can verify that what went into the machine was what they intended (and, in a dispute, a physical record will exist – essential, as computers tend to "fail").
I don't agree with most of Obama's proposals, but he's been more forthcoming about his plans than most of the politicians.
Check it out:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
aggie dude,
It won't necessarily be progress if the next president just continues where the current one leaves off. Besides, there's hardly an honest one in the bunch. They'll tell their supporters what they want to hear, water it down a little to appease the rest and continue on with their endless special investigator wars over blow jobs and who whispered sweet nothings into Robert Novak's ear (and god help is if the two are combined — ewww!) just like the last 16 years. Meanwhile, we have significant problems that still won't be addressed because no one wants to man up and tell it the way it is. Factory jobs aren't coming back – ever – not unless we do actually become a third world country and that is frighteningly possible. Drug and medical costs are rising and no other health care reform or universal coverage program can or will work until that is addressed and reversed. We can no longer afford to be the sugar daddy for a vast military-industrial complex and their grossly expensive, late, and largely ineffective programs. Ditto for DHS and the rest. There was a story out last week that the U.S. may get knocked down a credit rating, which would have a significant impact on our debt and revenue. We do need to tighten down on companies, corporations and funds that evade taxes by setting up offshore. All taxes will have to be raised again, corporate and personal income. The AMT will also have to remain and start being collected on. Something has to be done, or at this rate our mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone will equal or exceed our national GDP in the next 10-20 years even with consistent economic growth. And no, I didn't pull this off some Ron Paul internet shrine – this is what the GAO has been telling Congress for years and the CBO just put out a report saying the same thing.
Heatkernel said:
"If the US government did any or all of these things, that class, in the person of the corporations, would just quarantine the patient and let the fever pass–i.e. punitively pull out its interests and let the US economy collapse until the "socialists" were overthrown."
They could do that, but that would leave foreign corporations to fill up the vacuum. As Ted said, he would bar these very same corporations from selling goods in the US.
Kucinich wants to do much of the same thing Ted does, and he has not been "invited" to the debates. Thats how far we've sunk.
Ted,
I agree with exactly zero of your initiatives. But at least you have the guts to put them forward, and people can agree or disagree. I'm sick of hearing about "change" and "hope". Those aren't policies, unless you watch Oprah. Sadly, Obama may win the nomination on liberal white guilt alone.
Read John Gray's book on global capitalism, _False Dawn_ to find out why. Basically the global capitalist class has already effectively detached itself from its original post-WWII base in the US. If the US government did any or all of these things, that class, in the person of the corporations, would just quarantine the patient and let the fever pass–i.e. punitively pull out its interests and let the US economy collapse until the "socialists" were overthrown….
Economic terrorists should be treated as such. Remember, Iraq did not do anything to the US to warrant the LBO we did on them. We did it because we could.
All I'm saying is this: where there's a will, there's a way. And I am not even saying there is a will.
To Heatkernel,
What you are saying is pure nonsense and specious. The American economy is the primary
market to the world economy. No corporation will survive without
selling to it. Besides most foreign
corporations are having partnerships with American
corporations and American capital
too.
There is one candidate who says exactly what he'll do: withdraw from Iraq by replacing US invasion troops with a multinational coalition of peacekeepers; establish universal private not-for-profit healthcare; repeal NAFTA and other one-sided trade agreements and replace them with truly fair trade agreements that hold our partners to the same safety and environmental standards as our own.
Is it possible? I don't know. But he does say specifically what his intentions are. Interestingly, NPR managed to air a two-minute segment on the Dem primary in Michigan without once mentioning him. That wasn't easy, since there are only two Dems on the ticket in Michigan.
They talked about Clinton being on the ticket, Obama and Edwards being unavailable, and the "Uncommitted" (or "Not Hillary") option, and never mentioned the other Dem on the ballot. He's been endorsed by Michael Moore, who's popular in MI, but perhaps not by sufficient numbers of lobbyists.
The condition of our political system, our 'Democracy' if you can call being fooled into electing the best funded candidate who btw doesn't give two hoots about your views or values, if you can call that a 'free election' thats simply something that would make me laugh if it didnt make me cry.
But realistically what your stuck with is voting for the best candidate – WHO CAN WIN. Kucinich is by far the best candidate – but most people don't know who he is, hell put him and Ralph Nader and you got damn near United States of Utopia but its just a wonderful dream that will never be, so the next best choice is Barak Obama, sure he's not as liberal as you and I would like him to be…or at least he's not acting as such, but he's the best that we have from the choices that we have – Vote Obama!
With the exception of the taxes on corporations and free college, Ron Paul wants to do those things Ted said — and he has been invited to the debates.
Hopefully one party (or a new party) can get our national head out of its ass.
M
fouad: Don't forget that these are the Primaries.
The Republicans are down five runs, bottom of the ninth, two outs, nobody on, and the biggest string of creampuffs we've seen in years in their lineup. Frankly, this is the year, if ever, that we can vote for who we like in a primary.
When it gets to the convention the DNC will pick the real candidate. They'll worry about electability, and they'll "fix" any of our choices that they disagree with. (Someone who, oh, doesn't look attractive to lobbyists? they're gone without a trace, don't worry!)
So anyone who likes Dennis Kucinich; likes his programs, likes his stance — vote for him in the primary! It sends a message to the DNC, and that's the biggest part of what our primary vote CAN do.
I think there's a place for self-edification here. The I feel this way is because I work in the arena of standards and standardization of practices (what the WTO and globalization are really about), and the notion that a Kucinich or Nadar can really start to take us in a better direction if only they would be elected is, to quote Slick Willie, a fairy tale.
Like Gorbachev, they may be able to institute a set of policies that starts the avalanche, but we're more likely to wind up with a Vladimir Putin type than we are a Thomas Jefferson. I hate to think my idealism has been beaten out of me completely over the years, but the seeds of revolutionary change aren't even planted here in the United States, and are as unlikely to sprout a socialist revolution as those of Marx's Germany in 1860.
Our lasting hope is through the fire of our own German Solution, which is not exactly what anyone actually wants. The best we can hope for is Britain's post colonial fate.
Americans like to believe they are always in control of destiny, but it is worthwhile to consider that maybe we are simply shackled to a sinking militaristic empire? Any democrat in the field today would have a substantive shift in America's image around the world for symbolic reasons if nothing else, and all I'm advocating is that perhaps we should realize that the main goal is to take the current crop of Republicans out of office as a first step.
I say this because I am not at all confident that democrats will win back the white house. The intellectual rot that infests this nation is simply too deep to believe that anything is a lock. I also think that the world is, in fact, changing so rapidly that it warrants consideration that the Fordist mentality of liberal governance may not actually yield the best results. I don't see it as all that bad that Obama doesn't have all the answers automatically, electing competence is a start in and of itself, and I think all the democratic candidates represent that.
WFAR:
I fear you're right: Tammany Hall is back in biz, thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Leadership (to where?) Committee.
OK, now who's got the guts to vote your choice in the general election despite the sales pitches hawking the illogical "unelectability" crap? If there are enough of us, we may restore democracy here and everybody wins.
Here it is, the best chance to get the republicans out of the white house, and the democrats are going to blow it by destroying each other before we even get to the election.
We'll know why not to vote for the front runner (whoever that may be) long before we even have a chance at getting someone elected.
Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee would be happy to fill the void. They succeed in making idiots like Giuliani and McCain look like democrats.
Slam this guy. Slam that guy. What in reallity can be done to create the change we want to see? I'm not asking for utopic fantasy land but real life here in the U.S.A.?
Susan Stark wrote:
They could do that, but that would leave foreign corporations to fill up the vacuum.
Can you define a "foreign corporation"? Or an "American corporation", for that matter? I sure can't anymore. All the large corporations these days have supply and distribution chains spanning several continents, share- and bondholders from several continents, as well as all sorts of off-the-books and off-shore registrations and enterprises to avoid paying taxes. No one can take their loyalty or lack of loyalty to any state for granted.
The reaction I have outlined to the implementation of Ted's program requires NOT some sort of grand conspiracy of corporations against the people as much as the natural flow of capital to where its yield (with a great emphasis on the short-term yield) is greatest. This freedom of capital to flow "without viscosity" has been achieved by a systematic, country-by-country dismantling of regulatory regimes over the past 30 years. As finance operates now, there is no way that one isolated government re-erecting trade barriers and regulatory regimes could withstand the resulting capital outflow. That is the point of Grey's book in a nutshell and if you still don't understand it, I suggest you read it.
Also, have you ever heard of private equity and Sovereign Wealth funds?
The rise of such institutions suggest the following: the paradigm we have been operating from since the mid 19th c., in which the world-system is based on Nation States which act as powerful referees for commerce, is quickly becoming inoperative. Based on the relative decline of Nation States and the rise of a complex web of interested relations binding together Nations and Corporations, I think one has to consider the Corporations and remaining Nation States as entities virtually of the same type and similar powers. The great disadvantage of the Nation States vis-a-vis the Corporations is that the identity and "capital" of this type of institution is tied down to the people and resources of a particular region. That is unlike the Corporations and their fluid capital resources and geographically mobile identities. Van Creveld's _Rise and Decline of the State_, though much wider in scope than purely economic matters, has some interesting things to say in this regard.
To Angelo and Anonymous at 6:15AM:
That is some nice chest-beating. Care to back it up with arguments and/or citations?
Issue framing people! We're talking about WHO we put in office, not WHAT they do after they get there. I understand what Ted is getting at, they individual has to have a sense of what they will do, but as a whole this country elects a king (and maybe a queen now) and then defends them as though they are not tied to law. Until politicians can face jail time for violating laws, we can elect Mickey Mouse….it won't matter.
What is done is more important than who done it. Unfortunately the first politician to remove this level of immunity from accountability is going to be thrown out immediately.
Fascism never sleeps.
Heatkernel has a point that needs more consideration in the greater conversation. Take the Philippines, for example. Last I checked, Dole and Chiquita Banana et al. "lease" 90% of their land and employ 10% of the population. Most Filipinos live outside of the Philippines and the economy is propped up through remittance. It is just individuals (natural and "juristic") seeking out capital. We saw the same cycle in African countries like, Senegal, where European peanut oil interests own the country. Or check out Purina in the 70s and 80s, exporting tons of sorghum from regions adjacent to famine zones. This is all possible through, as you put it, "the way finance operates now". And the way finance operates now is as a result of careful profit-driven market engineering. The web is only as entangled as it has been engineered to be. These systems are not natural evolutions by any stretch , and it is possible to restrict the shit out of them, if there is a will. Look at the EU's "golden share" proposal or the US' Exon-Florio Amendment(I wiki'ed it). So, no, it is not a conspiracy. Islamic terrorists do not conspire against "the people" either. They have other motivations, causing suffering is not their goal, just a way to get there.
All I'm saying is, especially in lieu of the current condition of executive power in this country right now, a hypothetical President Theodore H. Rall could decide to "go Bush" on all domestic and global NGOs and SGOs and call it a matter of national security. He could take it personally when a any body, albeit innocently, taking actions that destroy the lives of people in any country. There was a time before the World Bank and the Central Bank, and these other types of banks you are talking about. Remember Iraq? I mean, don't we eat "capital outflow" for breakfast in this country?
Ted-
I have long enjoyed your comix- but you really need to get a grip. Fascism is fascism no matter who is in power, GWB or Ted Rall. Stop being intentionally oblique. As much as I want universal health care, and you want universal health care, and even Barack Obama wants universal health care, the American public won't buy it. Yet. Our media is run by corporate shills and loud mouthed right-wingers. They have been scaring the public for years, and you expect someone to stand up and say, day one, universal health care for everyone?
That person will not be president- and we will get Mitt Romney instead.
We have a long way to go to get this country back on an even keel. Look at what Obama says, and don't be so fucking literal. He talks about making healthcare affordable and moving on from there to a more universal plan.
We saw what happened when Hillary tried it back in the 90's- she couldn't sell health care and it was shot down. You have to bring the electorate along with you and convince them to support the right path. It takes slow work, but when you are done you have something to keep.
That is what the nitpicking over "mandates" was all about- forcing people, or convincing people.
Seriously, you cannot force your will on the people- that's fascism, whether right or left wing. And these sort of articles do not help.
Angelo,
Yes you can restrict them, but there are considerable time constraints on investigating whether the Exon-Florio Amendment should be applied. I can see it taking more than 45 days to unravel who owns what. And I realize you provided a specific example for an overall point, I'm just saying it's conceivable that any road blocks put up could be overwhelmed by complexity. And have we become vulnerable enough that transnational or completely foreign corporations wouldn't have to attempt leveraged buyout or hostile takeover but put just enough pressure on our economy to cause an implosion? I've seen talk that something similar is what fueled the mortgage crisis, as it were — hedge funds that were short selling the CDO's and accelerating pressure on the CDO market to speed up the inevitable.
The American economy is the primary market to the world economy. No corporation will survive without selling to it.
No, I don't think so. It is a primary market, but the Euro and British Pound are plenty strong right now. China's a leading exporter with a rising taste for consumerism, India and Russia both bear watching and I think (not as sure on this one) South Korea is already a major player in Asian markets and likely to be one on a global scale. They may not make as much total profit or do as much business without dealing directly with the U.S. and it would be difficult to completely shun us, but a company could survive doing business exclusively elsewhere.
I'm surprised no one called me on the fact that my link made pretty much the opposite point I was trying to make. I clearly do not understand this issue. I would like to.
I just like the idea of everybody realizing that state power is limited, and that there is a "global capitalist class" with their own agenda.
One of my friends and I were talking the other night. He's an Edwards supporter and we're both kind of annoyed at what seems to be this tremendous push behind Barack Obama by people who don't even give his candidacy any thought. They buy into this vague terms like "hope" and "change" but have no explanation on what we'd actually change into. They like to champion Obama's ability to work with Republicans as if it's a good thing , but I don't want him to work with Republicans! The GOP has had their time at the table and made a mess out of everything! Let's bring back some partisanship and help fix things.
Angelo,
You know, I didn't ever click on your link until you mentioned it – I searched on the amendment you quoted. And even economists don't agree on most things economic.
Those hedge funds are something else…it isn't like joe investor can get into them either. Typically corporations or individuals with significant net assets. I know that makes me the minority here but that is one reason I do not care for John Edwards at all. The 'ambulance chasing' I have no problem with but there are plenty of places to learn economics without taking a huge salary from a corporation that practices the evils he rails against on the stump.
Here's an interesting Obama tidbit that I thought you'd might like:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/17/6445/
from Democracy Now!
"Senator Barack Obama: “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people—he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
Looking at the all-Obama-coverage Huffington Post there's the relative sound of chirping crickets. They link to a New York Daily News article that talks about Obama calling the GOP the "Party of ideas" for a period of 15 years, but that only says that he labeled Reagan a "transformative figure".
Maybe if they printed the original link with the original quote they might have made, truthfully, their readership angry at Obama. But they prefer obfuscation to truth. Even if it gets a liar elected.
swisn, So, do you think he would not kick as much corporate ass as I hoped we would?
"the notion that a Kucinich or Nadar can really start to take us in a better direction if only they would be elected is, to quote Slick Willie, a fairy tale."
There are too many examples against this, aggie. FDR, Reagan and Bush have all proven what we all know to be all too true: that executive power is totally out of control.